People from Western countries have a tendency to side with the underdog. No matter the conflict, it seems that the natural reaction of liberal-minded people throughout the democratic world is to instinctively assume the innocence of David and the guilt of Goliath. So when the Western world looks upon the Palestinian population and see their poor and unhealthy living conditions, their hearts naturally go out to them. They—the smaller and less powerful of the two warring entities—must have been wronged. After all, if they were given a fair chance, they would not be living in these conditions.

Unfortunately, the tendency to side with the underdog is leading us away from peace in this case. Some justify an end to checkpoints in the West Bank (a security precaution taken by Israel that has saved countless innocent lives from suicide bombings) in the name of freedom of movement. Others justify Palestinian “resistance,” which takes the form of targeted killings of innocent Israeli civilians in the name of
equality, more often than not. Still, others justify the electoral victory in Gaza of Hamas, a terrorist organization committed to the complete annihilation of the State of Israel. Westerners do this because of an almost innate incapability of understanding the mentality of fundamentalism. We think “if only they were treated fairly…if only they were given a viable state…if only…”

If only.

In late 2000, under the Clinton Parameters, Palestinians were offered an independent state on 100 per cent of the Gaza Strip, 95 per cent of the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem (not Abu-Dis) as a capital city, the right of return for Palestinian refugees to the newly created Palestine and a multi-billion dollar fund to compensate and resettle these Palestinian refugees.

 This was a painful Israeli concession for Palestinian statehood—not Bantustans, not cantons, but a viable and contiguous territory that would even include a free and safe passage from Gaza to the West Bank. This was a compromise that would have involved uprooting hundreds of Israeli settlements—people who had been living in their homes for generations—for the sake of peace. This would have shattered the so-called “occupation” and would have solved the lingering Palestinian refugee crisis.  

Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, walked away without even a counterproposal.

 In 2001 at a peace summit in Taba, Arafat was offered a similar package but with an additional two per cent of the West Bank (bringing the total to 97 per cent) as well as a further three per cent swap of arable land from Israel-proper (bringing the total to 100 per cent).

 But in the end, as has been proven time and again, the Palestinian leadership was unwilling to end the conflict and accept peace. Abu-Ala, the top Palestinian negotiator at both the Camp David and the Taba summits, was quoted as saying “The boss does not want an agreement.” Instead of peace, Arafat had instigated an intifadah, a nice way of saying the suicide bombing of innocent civilians, causing the death of thousands. And, as is usually the case, people from the West made, and continue to make, excuses for the underdog. “They weren’t offered enough. They were mistreated.”

The fact is, when Palestinians become willing to make compromises for the sake of progress, they will no longer live in such abject conditions. Support for Palestinian “resistance” conveys only ignorance; a juvenile craving to help the little guy. This is especially apparent in light of the incredible peace offers that have been made to the Palestinians—offers that were indignantly rejected and then swept under the rug. In the end, the David-Goliath paradigm just does not apply in the Middle East; we in the West must finally accept that sometimes the underdog is also guilty of the aggression.

Yoni Dayan is a member of Israel Awareness Club (IAC).